The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) has denied a nurse’s claim for compensation for a mental disorder under section 135 of British Columbia’s Workers Compensation Act.
It found that the events the worker cited between October 2022 and February 2023 did not amount to “significant work-related stressors” as required under the statute, and some incidents fell within employer decisions that are excluded from compensation coverage.
What happened
The worker, identified only as a nurse and community worker supervisor, had attributed her mental disorder to various interactions with colleagues and management at her workplace. According to the decision, the worker had previously been off work due to a confirmed case of sexual harassment in 2021. After returning to work in October 2022, she reported a range of workplace incidents that she said led to mental distress. The employer did not participate in the appeal, though it had been invited to do so.
The WCAT considered section 135 of the Act and the associated Board policies outlined in the Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual, Volume II. Under section 135(1) of the Act, a worker may be entitled to compensation for a mental disorder if the mental condition is a reaction to one or more traumatic events, or if it is “predominantly caused by a significant work-related stressor, including bullying or harassment, or a cumulative series of significant work-related stressors.”
The mental disorder must be diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist and cannot be caused by decisions of the employer related to the worker’s employment, such as changes in working conditions or performance management.
The worker did not argue that she experienced any traumatic events under the Act, focusing instead on the “significant stressor” criterion. She alleged that numerous workplace interactions during the specified period were intended to “humiliate, intimidate, and degrade” her. These included co-workers offering terse or minimal communication, an incident where a co-worker asked if she was pregnant (which the worker interpreted as calling her “fat”), comments about her return-to-work process progressing slowly, and disputes over break times and the handling of her accommodation plan.
In addition, the worker complained of management decisions that affected her working conditions and desk location following her return from leave. She felt these decisions were exclusionary and contributed to an atmosphere of hostility. The employer had also addressed complaints about her smoking, which the worker believed was an unreasonable application of a workplace scent policy.
WCAT ruling
The WCAT vice chair, Chad McRae, considered whether any of these incidents met the definition of significant stressors. He referenced policy item C3-24.00, which states that a stressor must be “excessive in intensity and/or duration from what is experienced in the normal pressures or tensions” of employment. He also noted that “interpersonal conflicts between the worker and his or her supervisors, co-workers or customers are not generally considered significant unless the conflict results in behaviour that is considered threatening or abusive.”
The WCAT pointed to Practice Directive C3-3 as guidance, which clarifies that while bullying and harassment are forms of significant stressors, “not all rude or thoughtless conduct amounts to abusive behaviour.”
The directive notes that decisions by an employer related to the worker’s job — such as changes in duties, disciplinary actions, or adjustments to working conditions — are generally excluded unless they are carried out in a manner that is objectively threatening or abusive.
After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal concluded that the events described by the worker, while at times rude, did not reach the threshold of being objectively threatening or abusive. The decision noted that some co-workers “rolled their eyes” or gave curt responses, and others commented on the pace of the return-to-work process. While unprofessional, these actions were found to be relatively common interpersonal conflicts that can arise in many workplaces. The tribunal wrote: “I do not objectively conclude that these events were abusive or threatening.”
The decision also determined that any mental distress caused by employer decisions related to working conditions or job duties fell under section 135(1)(c) of the Act, which excludes compensation for mental disorders caused by employer decisions relating to the worker’s employment. Such decisions included adjustments to the worker’s desk location and accommodation plan, handling of break times, addressing complaints about her smoking, and an inadvertent omission of her name from a long-service recognition e-mail. The vice chair noted: “There is no entitlement to compensation if the mental disorder was caused by an employer decision per this section of the Act.”
‘Not excessive in intensity’
In its written reasons, the tribunal stated that while the worker may have genuinely felt unwelcome and targeted, the analysis required an objective assessment of whether these events rose above typical workplace conflict. The vice chair wrote: “I find that this was not excessive in intensity and/or duration from what would normally be present in a health care environment.”
The worker’s submissions, including journals and e-mails describing her perspective and statements from co-workers, were reviewed. On appeal, the worker introduced a May 15, 2024 assessment report by a psychologist, but the WCAT found that this medical evidence did not influence the threshold question of whether the events themselves were significant stressors. The decision emphasized that the determination of whether workplace events are significant stressors is not solely a medical determination. Instead, it depends on the objective nature of the incidents in the specific work context.
Because the worker’s claim did not meet the criteria that must be satisfied under section 135 of the Act and related policies, the tribunal concluded that compensation could not be granted. The decision states: “I have found that none of the events the worker was exposed to between October 2022 and February 2023 were significant stressors and that many of them would also be excluded under section 135(1)(c) of the Act.”
As a result, the WCAT confirmed the Review Division’s decision (Review Reference #R0310846) dated March 19, 2024, which upheld the original June 12, 2023 Board decision denying the claim. The vice chair noted: “The worker did not develop or aggravate a pre-existing mental disorder that arose out of and in the course of her employment … as a result of workplace events between October 2022 and February 2023.”
No appeal expenses were awarded.
For more information, see A2400818 (Re), 2024 CanLII 121719 (BC WCAT).
